A plan to balance the Federal Budget by 2020

[can't sit still]

There are other ways to help the country. This is from The Wellinmgton letter;

“PROOF:â€

[can't sit still]

jk, much of the problem is not bad economic policy. It is a result of market forces. I'll write in the "Winter" thread.

[Elderberry]

[quote="can't sit still"]There are other ways to help the country. This is from The Wellinmgton letter;

“PROOF:â€

[Elderberry]

jk, much of the problem is not bad economic policy. It is a result of market forces. I'll write in the "Winter" thread.

another chicken and egg sort of argument. Market forces/free markets/economic policy (i.e. regulation), none of these work in a vacuum.

JK

[knowmad]

....

LOL I wonder how many people here on eplaya would be willing to sign onto this plan?

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/f ... stics-1110

JK

I took me about an hour to read through this thread, and I think I have a new platform for my fellow eplayans,
Am I wrong? or do I see a demand for:
Mandatory voting, Balanced budget for each legislature, and an end to Lobbyists?

or is this some of the same old teapublicans and demobags, fighting over the future of the Demicans party's influence over the Republicat's astrograssmovement?

and honestly:
I really don't think, or care about what you politicos think. I'd rather watch you lunge rabidly at each others throats as Rome burns.

bugger off and Vote for this: )'(

[can't sit still]

knowmad, To the list that you propose, I think that you should add;
Candidates must meet many requirements to be eligible. Many of our politicians. have NO ability to qualify them for the job.

[Elderberry]

knowmad, To the list that you propose, I think that you should add;
Candidates must meet many requirements to be eligible. Many of our politicians. have NO ability to qualify them for the job.

Boy do I agree with that statement...but as usual, the devil is in the details.

My biggest three requirements is that they pass a science test and an American test and that they are atheists!

Oh well, I can dream. It's just hard to put any faith in people that believe in imaginary beings. I guess I'll just have to settle for them passing the American History and science tests.

JK

[Elderberry]

....

LOL I wonder how many people here on eplaya would be willing to sign onto this plan?

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/f ... stics-1110

JK

Am I wrong? or do I see a demand for:
Mandatory voting, Balanced budget for each legislature, and an end to Lobbyists?



bugger off and Vote for this: )'(

Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.

Ending corporate and special interest donations to campaigns. (lobbyists serve a purpose and I wouldn't mind them if all they could do was voice an opinion--but their opinions are always sweetened by the expectation of large campaign contributions.

Mandatory Voting--interesting. How do we enforce this? And would it really be of benefit if people just did it by blindly checking off the ballot to conform to the law? That might be worse than not voting.

JK

[can't sit still]

jk, I would demand that they have a great knowledge of history. Viet Nam and Afghanistan are proven traps.

[Elderberry]

jk, I would demand that they have a great knowledge of history. Viet Nam and Afghanistan are proven traps.

Again we agree.

There are two other controversial things I'd like to see made into law:

1. Re-institute the draft.
2. Have a 10% tax on all earnings for each war or conflict we enter into.

The only reason Congress can get away with authorizing all of the wars and growing the debt is because the majority of people in the country are totally removed from the reality of what is happening over there. If going to war would have the real possibility that "they" or "their children" might actually have to bear the burden of fighting congress' war, I don't think they would put up with us going to war.

And the tax would have the same effect. Everyone would have to be willing to sacrifice to support the war. If people didn't believe the war was worth fighting strongly enough to reach into their pockets to find it, again congress wouldn't be able to get us involved in these conflicts so easily.

JK

[ygmir]

jk, I would demand that they have a great knowledge of history. Viet Nam and Afghanistan are proven traps.

Again we agree.

There are two other controversial things I'd like to see made into law:

1. Re-institute the draft.
2. Have a 10% tax on all earnings for each war or conflict we enter into.

The only reason Congress can get away with authorizing all of the wars and growing the debt is because the majority of people in the country are totally removed from the reality of what is happening over there. If going to war would have the real possibility that "they" or "their children" might actually have to bear the burden of fighting congress' war, I don't think they would put up with us going to war.

And the tax would have the same effect. Everyone would have to be willing to sacrifice to support the war. If people didn't believe the war was worth fighting strongly enough to reach into their pockets to find it, again congress wouldn't be able to get us involved in these conflicts so easily.

JK

*seeing , JK, CSS, and I, holding hands, singing camp songs around the fire*

[Elderberry]

jk, I would demand that they have a great knowledge of history. Viet Nam and Afghanistan are proven traps.

Again we agree.

There are two other controversial things I'd like to see made into law:

1. Re-institute the draft.
2. Have a 10% tax on all earnings for each war or conflict we enter into.

The only reason Congress can get away with authorizing all of the wars and growing the debt is because the majority of people in the country are totally removed from the reality of what is happening over there. If going to war would have the real possibility that "they" or "their children" might actually have to bear the burden of fighting congress' war, I don't think they would put up with us going to war.

And the tax would have the same effect. Everyone would have to be willing to sacrifice to support the war. If people didn't believe the war was worth fighting strongly enough to reach into their pockets to find it, again congress wouldn't be able to get us involved in these conflicts so easily.

JK

*seeing , JK, CSS, and I, holding hands, singing camp songs around the fire*

I like agreeing way better than arguing.

JK

[can't sit still]

YES, but, can we agree on which songs to sing? I remember the words to "Tom Dooley"

[Elderberry]

I'm reading an interesting book by Michael Mandelbaum titled "The Frugal Superpower" which discusses how our economy and budget situation will affect our roll in the world from here on out.

This is probably why nobody is all that worried about that state of our budget at this point:

"Indebted though the United States had become by 2008, as a percentage of its total output, the country's debt was only half what it had been in 1945, when the cost of waging World War II sent it soaring to 122 percent of the national gross domestic product (GDP). Even with another decade of large annual debts after 2008, the national debt-to-GDP ratio, by at least one calculation, would reach only 80 percent, which would still be lower than that of 1945."

JK

[can't sit still]

jk, after WW II, America had 50 % of the entire worlds production capacity. We also had most of the world's gold. We were also a creditor nation, NOT a debtor.
A VERY different world.

[ygmir]

YES, but, can we agree on which songs to sing? I remember the words to "Tom Dooley"

I was hoping for "In a gadda da vida"

[can't sit still]

Here's something to compare. Deficit reduction plans;
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-jo ... thru_m=h2a

http://www.businessinsider.com/progress ... an-2010-11#

[Elderberry]

CSS There are a lot of ways to skin a cat. Without running numbers that plan appears to have merit. Another would be to simply freeze ALL spending at today's level, which I read would reduce the deficit to zero in six or seven years.I don't see the problem so much as what to do, but of actually realizing the magnitude of the problem and just doing something.

It's obvious that there will never be consesus on all that actually needs to be done.

JK

[ygmir]

CSS There are a lot of ways to skin a cat. Without running numbers that plan appears to have merit. Another would be to simply freeze ALL spending at today's level, which I read would reduce the deficit to zero in six or seven years.I don't see the problem so much as what to do, but of actually realizing the magnitude of the problem and just doing something.

It's obvious that there will never be consesus on all that actually needs to be done.

JK

That's interesting, JK.
if just freezing spending at current levels would do that......
and, an interesting comment, on the "ticks" in Washington:
That they won't even agree to freeze spending, but, demand to spend more, each year.

Just how "out of touch" can they be?

[can't sit still]

This puts things in perspective;
http://wimp.com/budgetcuts/

[jerroc]

I'm for buying back the federal reserve bank which is owned by 12 private banks. Putting it back into the hands of congress and let americans oversee our own central banking system. Its said the intrest we pay the current FED on money printed and loaned to americans would pay off our defict in 7 years.

[Elderberry]

Here's an explanation of the budget that even I can understand. Looks like I'll have to give up a few pennies of my social security.



And the entire new President's budget. (fortunately this link is th the NYT where they were kind enough to present it in a much easier form to understand.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011 ... a-doc.html

JK

[ygmir]

I'm for buying back the federal reserve bank which is owned by 12 private banks. Putting it back into the hands of congress and let americans oversee our own central banking system. Its said the intrest we pay the current FED on money printed and loaned to americans would pay off our defict in 7 years.

or even we just "take" the FED back and tell the banks "suck it up"?

forget buying it from them.

[can't sit still]

Pull out your checkbook.
"The U.S. Federal government deficit for fiscal year 2011 was revised to $1.645 trillion. That revision was up from the previous estimate of $1.4 trillion, which itself was a revision just a couple-three weeks ago by the Congressional Budget Office from the White House’s earlier projection of $1.267 trillion in December. "
http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2011/02 ... r-big.html
Debt is already 100 % of GDP. who knows where this will all end?

[Elderberry]

Pull out your checkbook.
"The U.S. Federal government deficit for fiscal year 2011 was revised to $1.645 trillion. That revision was up from the previous estimate of $1.4 trillion, which itself was a revision just a couple-three weeks ago by the Congressional Budget Office from the White House’s earlier projection of $1.267 trillion in December. "
http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2011/02 ... r-big.html
Debt is already 100 % of GDP. who knows where this will all end?

OK I'm copying this from the survival thread, as it applies to your post here as well and won't drift that thread any farther.

Maybe I do see what I want to see, I'm not really very good with details...However, what difference does it make, really? The cost of those jobs to the government in comparison to what they did for the economy more than offset itself. I'd be willing to bet that all the money paid those temporary workers was spent.

Still, small potatoes. When we start talking huge cuts in military spending, foreign aid and ending the wars, we'll be talking real dollars and have a real shot of balancing the budget.

Then, we can start thinking intelligently about other entitlements like social security, which at this point, has a huge surplus.

Add a few more tweaks into the health-care reform and we'll be able to tackle Medicare/Medicaid too.

Oh, and let's not forget raising the taxes of the top 1 or 2% of the population.

All accomplished and none of the working people are hurt.

OH, and while I'm thinking about it...a TRANSACTION tax on electronic trades on wall street should be good for several billion too.

JK

We really should move this into the finance or politics thread or we'll be pissing off the survivalists...and you know how prepared they are for contingencies.

JK

[Elderberry]

You all know I'm a business owner. Actually I've never worked for anyone in my life after the army. I'm only providing the background as context for saying that as a business owner, I've always been anti-union, as I felt it should be a business owner's prerogative to decide what how much to pay my employees and decide what benefits I choose to provide.

Either my business isn't large enough, or I'm not greedy enough, but I've always thought that my growth and success was always more because of the people that worked for me and I have compensated them as such.

But this thing in Wisconsin just has me mad as hell. It is nothing more than politics and gamesmanship at the expense of the working class. Doesn't matter if they are public or private employees. They are school teachers, garbage collectors, police and firemen. They have a union. They have a right to NEGOTIATE. Government should not have the power to strip them of all they have worked so hard to attain--especially under the guise of a balanced budget when the truth is it's all politics, as I said earlier.

And, according to what I've read, the unions are ready to negotiate, but the Republican governor will have no part of it...it would spoil the master plan. And watch, if they lose in Wisconsin, a wave of union busting will sweep the entire nation. And, I'm surprised to say, this will not be a good thing.

JK

[Elderberry]

http://media.crooksandliars.com/downloa ... 021811.mov

JK

[Trishntek]

So you would agree to gouge your customers and go into financial ruin to pay your employees what they want?

edited to add: You will be hard put to prove that law enforcement and firefighters are included in the Wisconsin equation. The modest offer to the rest is increasing their healthcare share of the premium from 5.6% to 12.2% and paying something similar into their pensions. These are still less than half what union workers in the private sector pay in Wisconsin.

Did you listen to the Governor's news conference today? The state must take this step to prevent counties and municipalities from going broke. It is they who are at the greatest risk of losing services. Wisconsin has a 100 year-old statute which supercedes collective bargaining for public employees. It stipulates merit and longevity pay scales along with a system for addressing grievances.

[Elderberry]

So you would agree to gouge your customers and go into financial ruin to pay your employees what they want?

No, absolutely not. There's a big difference between being fair and being stupid.

However you used the word "gouge" and that could open up an entire new conversation, as many people feel that charging as much as the market will bear is gouging. I am not of that belief. We provide high quality concierge service and charge appropriately. Those that want less are not our target demographic.

JK

[Trishntek]

So you would agree to gouge your customers and go into financial ruin to pay your employees what they want?

No, absolutely not. There's a big difference between being fair and being stupid.

However you used the word "gouge" and that could open up an entire new conversation, as many people feel that charging as much as the market will bear is gouging. I am not of that belief. We provide high quality concierge service and charge appropriately. Those that want less are not our target demographic.

JK

And Wisconsin has already lost 7% of their population,,, you are willing to take that kind of hit in your clientele and still increase fees,,,, right?